Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar interbody fusion techniques treat degenerative lumbar diseases effectively. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) decreases soft tissue disruption and accelerates recovery better than standard open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). However, the material cost of LLIF is high, especially in Thailand. The cost-effectiveness of LLIF and PLIF in developing countries is unclear. This study compared the cost-utility and clinical outcomes of LLIF and PLIF in Thailand. METHODS: Data from patients with lumbar spondylosis who underwent single-level LLIF and PLIF between 2014 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative and 1-year follow-up EuroQol-5D-5L and healthcare costs were collected. A cost-utility analysis with a lifetime time horizon was performed using a societal perspective. Outcomes are reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of 5003 US dollars (USD) per QALY gained was used. RESULTS: The 136 enrolled patients had a mean age of 62.26 ± 11.66 years. Fifty-nine patients underwent LLIF, while 77 underwent PLIF. The PLIF group experienced greater estimated blood loss (458.96 vs 167.03 ml; P < 0.001), but the LLIF group had a longer operative time (222.80 vs 194.62 min; P = 0.007). One year postoperatively, the groups' Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQol-Visual Analog Scale scores were improved without statistical significance. The PLIF group had a significantly better utility score than the LLIF group (0.89 vs 0.84; P = 0.023). LLIF's total lifetime cost was less than that of PLIF (30,124 and 33,003 USD). Relative to PLIF, LLIF was not cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, with an ICER of 19,359 USD per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF demonstrated lower total lifetime cost from a societal perspective. Regard to our data, at the 1-year follow-up, the improvement in patient quality of life was less with LLIF than with PLIF. Additionally, economic evaluation modeling based on the context of Thailand showed that LLIF was not cost-effective compared with PLIF. A strategy that facilitates the selection of patients for LLIF is required to optimize patient benefits.